A common feature of human behavior is for people to take positions that are the exact opposite of their stated morality.
This isn't necessarily hypocrisy because hypocrites are necessarily aware of the contradiction. The fact that the practicioners of what I shall dub "scientism" are blissfully ignorant of the truth of their position only makes them that much harder to convince.
It should go without saying that science is never "settled." Science is a process, a method of truth-seeking and its core tenet is taking nothing for granted. There are endless examples of "settled science" being overturned by subsequent discoveries.
True scientists are constantly attacking the status quo and never resort to appeals to authority to settle disputes.
As a method of explaining the natural world and solving problems, science has done wonderfully well, but it is simply incapable of being turned into a philosophy or worldview. When people say they "believe science is real," that's a statement of faith, not logic.
Nothing I'm writing here is either new or original (well, other than my peerless prose styling), and if one goes back a couple of hundred years one finds the Cult of Reason making all these mistakes in Revolutionary France. Tens of millions of people have died thanks to "Scientific Socialism" in the 20th Century.
It's interesting that people who blame religion for war seem completely unaware that in so doing, they're making a new religion - which is far more murderous.
I should also mention that "religion causes wars" is garbage warmed over. People cause wars and they will sometimes use religion to justify their greed, wrath or other sins. Wars happen because people want and enjoy them. Violence is fun, as all of recorded history demonstrates. Having decided to make a war, people will then try to appeal for divine assistance or some other cause.
This is not to say that some wars aren't necessary or justified, merely that picking a single factor as the reason for most of them is either ignorant or dishonest.
It's also unscientific. To make that statement one would have to have a means of sifting through conflicts to determine the exact degree of religious scruple held by all the (long-dead) participants.
Since science needs extremely reliable data, it's always tentative at best. Since data can shift, science can never provide a steady moral compass, and it's interesting to see that each generation brings new revelations on the horrors that science can inflict. In fact, the more we empower science for its own sake, the most extreme these horrors become.
One doesn't need to go full-on Luddite and hate technology to understand that there are some experiments we shouldn't be undertaking.
That lack of any meaningful moral restraint is what makes scientism so scary. Not long ago, there would have been near-universal horror and massive federal investigations of allegations that abortion mills were doing a thriving trade in infant body parts. Instead, the investigators turned on the whistleblowers for exposing the enterprise and we were told that such grisly commerce is necessary for science to move forward.
Thus we come to the point where the same people who claim their opponents are Nazis have fully embraced the scientism of the actual Nazis. History has a strong sense of irony.